The Charles Freeman affair: Does it show we can't tolerate honest debate about Israel or was he simply a bad choice for National Intelligence Council chair?

Explain, if you can, the spike in Congress' approval rating (from 19 to 39) since January?

Close

Send to a friendThe Charles Freeman affair: Does it show we can\'t tolerate honest debate about Israel or was he simply a bad choice for National Intelligence Council chair? Explain, if you can, the spike in Congress\' approval rating (from 19 to 39) since January?

Share this

His own published writings show that he has a serious problem with historical accuracy and facts about Israel and Palestine. My reasonable inference for that conclusion comes from his own inaccurate and misleading published writings and mis- characterizations of Israeli history and policy towards Palestinians, past and present.

The fact is, as demonstrated by his own writings, is that Mr. Freeman allows a basic anti-Israel bias to cloud his objective assessment of the facts. That is a serious intellectual flaw for a person assigned the job to assess national intelligence sources and report to the Director of National Intelligence and ultimately to the president.

That is the only issue. You can have these doubts about Mr. Freeman's intellectual honesty or ability to be objective in certain areas without being pro-Israel or even a member of the "Lobby.".

That is why all the Republican members of the Intelligence Committee wrote a letter expressing concerns about Mr. Freeman. Obviously only someone with a conspiratorial-mind such as Mr. Freeman, who sees the "Lobby" behind every tree, would impute its influence as the cause of these widespread congressional concerns about Mr. Freeman's intellectual capacity to be objective in assessing crucial national intelligence.

I am a strong supporter of a two-state solution, consistent with Israel's security requirements, and for justice for disenfranchised and stateless Palestinians. However, I am objective enough to read, and not obscure, indisputable historical facts. I grieve for the suffering of generations of stateless Palestinian families. But I also know, as an indisputable historical fact, that Arab nations between 1947-1967 could have given Palestinians an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, including East Jerusalem, but did not. Why? And why did not Mr. Freeman, so far as I know, ever criticize Saudi Arabia and other Arab states for not doing so? Why?

Mr. Freeman's biased and inaccurate writings concerning basic historical facts concerning the tragic continued tension between Israel and its Arab neighbors is just one reason Mr. Freeman was not well-suited for this particular job -- not some dark conspiracy "orchestrated" by the Israel lobby.

Finally, Mr. Freeman's departing rant explaining his withdrawal, in which did not take any responsibility and obscured the facts about his own actual writings, and made dark and false charges of a conspiracy of nameless people who "libeled" him -- again without a single factual example -- was ironically the best evidence of all as to why, temperamentally and intellectually, he was not qualified for this particular job of objectively assessing crucial national intelligence facts.

The United States can tolerate honest debate about Israel, and it would be much better for both countries. Indeed, most Americans would welcome open and honest discourse on this important issue. It is the hard-line elements in the Israel lobby that can’t tolerate honest discussion, and have to try to silence, smear or marginalize anyone who raises doubts about the current “special relationship.”

Why do they do this? Because the case they are defending is so weak. Not the case for Israel’s existence, which is embraced by virtually everyone (including Freeman), but the case for backing it no matter what it does and for never saying a critical word in public. That policy has tarnished America’s image around the world, facilitated terrorist recruiting, and encouraged Israel to persist in policies (like building settlements) that have placed its own future at risk. And that’s why these groups went after Freeman so vehemently: to remind others in Washington that independent thought on this issue is not going to advance your career.

Freeman isn’t the first public servant to get blackballed by the lobby, and he probably won’t be the last. And so long as honest discussion is so difficult, U.S. policy will remain stuck in the same familiar ruts and both the United States and Israel (to say nothing of the Palestinians) will suffer.

Freeman's problem is not a matter of constrained debate but of limited competence. The great danger for an academic or policy "specialist" is the possibility that preconception or bias will color one's ability to dispassionately evaluate all relevant information. Freeman too often mistakes the trunk for the elephant -- an irritant in a teacher but a danger in a government official in a position to influence national policy. David Broder's assessment aside, it is Freeman's poor grasp of reality, not AIPAC, that is the relevant issue and Freeman's absence from government is not a loss.

The Obama Administration has stood strong in the face of its critics in recent days and weeks, well, most of them at least. There is one set of critics the Administration has yet to stand up to - the Israel lobby.

There was little doubt that Freeman was qualified for the job. It wasn't shortfalls in his resume that upset his opponents; rather it was his ability to honestly assess the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

In 2007, Freeman was quoted saying that "the brutal oppression of the Palestinians by Israeli occupation shows no sign of ending". Yet this assessment, based on the reality that a 42 year occupation of Palestinian territory which has only become deeper and less retractable due to continued settlement expansion, is precisely what drove so many pro-Israel types to oppose Freeman's appointment.

Even as the Secretary of State had just returned from a trip to Israel where she criticized the demolition of Palestinian homes and the building of settlements, the Obama Administration in Washington took a familiar stance and effectively told Freeman "you're on your own with this one buddy".

Before Freeman was sidelined there was the smear campaign against the esteemed Palestinian- American professor Rashid Khalidi who came to know the Obamas in Chicago. Khalidi's name was dragged through the mud in the days and weeks before the election in a last ditch effort to connect President Obama with terrorism. Before him was Robert Malley who served as a member of the American negotiating team at Camp David in 2000 and was initially advising the Obama Campaign on Israel-Palestinian Affairs until he was deemed to be too politically costly. Similarly, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who probably has more foreign policy experience than all the others combined, faced a similar fate. What they all have in common is their belief that the Israeli occupation is an obstacle to peace in the Middle East.

The Administration's hands-off attitude toward this type of controversy is sending the message to the Middle East that this President doesn't have the political capital on this issue necessary to mediate the conflict. That can only lead to more bloody conflict into the future.

There is one point on which I agree with Stephen Walt on the Chas Freeman issue. We certainly can tolerate honest debate about Israel in this country. From there we part company.

Many of Freeman’s die-hard supporters paint a picture of a vast conspiracy of pro-Israel supporters who stifle anyone who criticizes the Jewish state. This is a cartoonish view of reality.

Freeman opponents compose a very heterogeneous group. The “pro-Israel” critics of Freeman range from neo-cons, who are enthusiastic about the more right-wing elements in Israel’s political spectrum, to those who criticize Israeli settlement activity and support an active role for the United States in the peace process. Opponents of Freeman also include Human Rights Watch — hardly a group that could be put in the “pro-Israel” camp. Many of Freeman’s opponents do not fit that “hard-line” caricature. Moreover, if the “Israel Lobby” types blackball all those who do not fit their “hard-line” pro-Israel philosophy, then why have none of the other Obama foreign policy appointees— all of whom support an active process of seeking a two-state solution and none of whom believe Israel can do no wrong—been targeted by this conspiracy?

The Chas Freeman appointment failed for a number of reasons. His public positions on Israel, Saudi Arabia, and China— positions which are at odds with the position of the President —generated opposition from people of very different world views. It might comfort Freeman and his supporters to describe a black and white world where bad guys aligned with Israel all conspired to block his appointment. However, they only deceive themselves when they refuse to acknowledge the shades of grey that characterize the real world.

Let's be honest here about Congress' approval. They had no where to go but up.

Passing the 2009 stimulus and the 2008 omnibus budget sends a lot of money--whether you believe it's an investment or a waste--into every congressional district in America. To shorthand it: People like safe bridges. And they like seeing Congress pass legislation.

Charles Freeman: He was a loose cannon, but not a particularly threatening one.

Politically, it's easier inside the Obama administration to do without him.

As far as honest debate about Israel goes, Charles Freeman's withdrawal is prompting one in newspapers and magazines, on the blogosphere, and in the twitterverse.

As far as the debate about Israel and Palestine goes, however, it amazes me that proponents for one side over the other typically crush every and any nuanced public discussion of what is one of the most complex political issues on Earth. How can either side expect a resolution to ever take place, if proponents from both sides are forced to mouth platitudes and black-and-white talking points. It's either for or against. Pro-Israel or anti-Semitic. Pro-Palestine or anti-Muslim. Ridiculous. If ever a fractious, intractable issue like Middle East peace cried out for nuanced, skeptical, serious, outside-the-box, even generous and empathetic thinking, it's the one that exists as the permanent state of crises between Israel and the Palestinian territory.

The spike in Congress’ approval rating, reflecting increases among Democrats and Independents, is explained largely by growing satisfaction by these segments of the public with a Democratic Congress that appears to be working constructively with a popular Democratic president. There are now more Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independents and they agree with what the new unified party government is doing. This is also reflected in the increasing numbers who believe the country is headed in the right direction. The frantic media noise about earmarks and dissention among Democrats, and the Republican attacks on big government spending, are largely irrelevant.

Democrats now approve of the job that the Democratic Congress is doing

There is a simple reason that Congress's approval rating has risen.

Democrats now approve of the job that the Democratic Congress is doing.

Congressional approval ratings in 2008 reached abnormally low levels.

As would be expected, Republicans did not approve of the Democratic Congress. But Democrats were also frustrated with their own Democratically controlled Congress. 2006 was a big message election.

It was anti-Bush and against the Iraq War. When Democratic voters saw that this change election could not change policy on the war, they became disenchanted with Congress. This did not mean that they abandoned Democratic candidates at the polls; quite the contrary, the presidential and congressional elections of 2008 show that they were

still motivated to vote Democratic. History has shown that the president's approval rating is much more significant than Congress's.

Voters still saw George W. Bush unfavorably and voted against the Republican party.

Today's rise in Congressional ratings is more normal. Democrats approve of Congress's job, Republicans don't and independents are split.

The jump in Congress’ popularity is easily explained. American history shows clearly that our citizens like action. They equate action with leadership, and in times of crisis they want to see elected officials put aside their quarrelling and make dramatic moves to solve problems. Sure enough, we’re in an economic crisis, and whether you agree or disagree with what Congress has done, the legislature has taken swift action, especially for a body that usually lumbers forward with the speed of a box turtle. Now, 39% approval is only impressive when viewed through the prism of Congress’ usual sad ratings in the teens and twenties. However, these low ratings are partially due to Americans’ lack of appreciation for the Founders’ design. The Founders wanted Congress to be the inefficient element in government, slowing the President down in order to consider carefully his plans for change. There is no question that, in the case of the 2009 economic crisis, the President and Congress had little choice but to act, given the public’s expectations. Yet citizens should also keep in mind that the best thing government can do in some circumstances is nothing.

Approval ratings for Congress have doubled since the inauguration because Americans still believe in the democractic process and the potential of their representatives to deliver real change in national policies following years of Republican misrule. Voters are expressing cautious optimism at the prospect of a Democratic president and Congress taking their side amid the devastation of cascading losses of jobs, businesses and health care. They see the threats to their homes, savings and pensions and resent the military adventurism and constitutional excesses of the past eight years. Will the Congress be able to fulfill their promises to reorient the economy and reclaim responsibility to overhaul a system that has failed to serve the needs of ordinary Americans and their communities? The stimulus bill was easy compared to the looming fights on health care, carbon taxes and union rights. The American people will have to rally around a progressive agenda and express their demands for change in a more effective way than "high favorables" on opinion polls to realize the change they demanded in November.

Congressional ratings are rising as the American people are the change we voted for and Democrats - whose approval spiked the most - are willing to take yes for an answer.
On Freeman:

Lost in Freeman's farewell rant in defiance of vetting questions about foreign funding sources for his Middle East work are deep concerns about Freeman's views on human rights in China. Just this week, as China protests American declarations marking the 50th anniversary of the Dalai Lama in exile and calling for direct talks, the advocacy for human rights and democratic reform is a critical arrow missing from Freeman's quiver.

of summarizing the intelligence briefings for the President. His close and sympathetic connection to the Saudi government should have raised red flags. His selection makes many people wonder about the vetting process of the White House. The fact that Freeman lashed out against "the Israeli Lobby" is evidence of his biases.

First, now that Democrats control both the presidency and the Congress, and to the extent that Congress is now being seen as primarily enacting a Democratic president's agenda, more Democrats may be approving of its performance than previously, when Congress may have been viewed as at least somewhat complicit in enacting Bush's agenda. Conversely, in what I'd guess would be a smaller effect, some Republicans could be approving of Congress now as *opposed* to the president because they see it as the only national organization fighting back against the Obama agenda. Simple cross-tabulations of the raw data in these polls - which I unfortunately do not have access to - should be sufficient to test if my hypotheses are correct. So if someone from one of the major polling agencies is reading this, perhaps they could let us know the answer.

Congress's approval rating probably has gone up because Congressional Democrats were able to quickly pass an economic stimulus plan. This should give House Repblicans real second thoughts because they pursued a strategy of blind opposition. Republicans at this moment are on the wrong side of history and Democrats are being rewarded for taking decisive action.

Believe it or not Americans can respond well when Congress is hard at work. There have been several times in our history, such as when the Ervin committee investigated Watergate, that the public thought well of the institution.

Those are Gallup numbers, and note the split between Democrats, Independents and Republicans within those approval numbers. There's a huge spike in approval from Democrats (up by 34 to 57% since January), with a smaller increase with independents (doubled to 34 from 17), while Republicans are flat (22% approval of Congress, down one.) We know from multiple polls that approval of Congressional Democrats is higher than approval of Congressional Republicans (the same is true for the slightly different measure of favorability, which generally tracks with job approval.) Taken together, this suggests that Democrats and Independents in large numbers want Congress to function, want bills to be passed, and appreciate that Congress has tackled and passed legislation addressing the Great Recession. That¹s hardly surprising; elections have consequences, and the Democrats and Independents that voted for Obama have been convinced that action (not obstructionism) is needed.

One other important point...

Gallup's own numbers suggest that the self-identified Republicans are only 28% of the voting public these days (compared to 36% Democrats), which highlights how important Independent support is. Without that support, Republicans and Democrats are in no position to win elections. And when a minority party insists on obstructing the people¹s business (when there¹s plenty of opportunity to constructively participate and contribute), the rest of the public won¹t be happy about it.

Polls are just a snapshot, and this won't be the situation forever. But that¹s why the numbers are what they are today.

The Gallup survey’s internals show that the increase is due to satisfaction among Democrats, and to a lesser extent, Independents. It is the Obama base across the country that appreciates Capitol Hill’s action-oriented approach to getting the country moving again. These people may not agree with every step the chamber is taking, but they like the fact that Obama is thinking big on public policy. That is the president’s greatest asset. He has a program and people like the fact that Congress is attempting to solve the nation’s problems.

There is no great mystery about the jump in the approval ratings for Congress. Two months ago the economy was sinking and Congress appeared to be doing nothing.
Furthermore, the public was fuming about the fact that Congress had handed over $700 billion to the financial industry through the TARP with almost no strings attached.

Now the public has seen Congress pass an ambitious stimulus package (more will be needed) that will provide tangible benefits to those hit hardest by the downturn and will
prevent many state and local government cutbacks of important services. They have also seen Congress take steps (some real and some for show) to rein in the excesses in the financial industry. Congress is perceived differently because it has been acting differently. It's pretty simple.

Hard to believe that a “39 percent” approval rating is seen as good news. It seems folks are just glad that Congress is doing something. On the other hand, a House term last two years…not a hundred days. What will matter is how folks feel about the state of the economy, their national defense, homeland security, and the protection of their freedoms two years from now….and there is a real question as to whether this Congress has done anything yet to advance those causes.

With Freeman, there was NO hope for an honest debate with regard to Israel. He has been and will continue to be joined at the hip with the Saudis and the Arab World. After all they have made him quite a handsome living these many years. Obama seems to take the same tack with the Intelligence Community as President Clinton and that is contempt and mistrust. His appointments all have the traits of incompetence or pre-disposed opinions that are destructive to the important work they perform.

Congress: The American People were so hopeful for the “change” they were promised that they would believe anything. When reality sets in and they come to realize that some things never “change” in the way Washington does business, they will quickly turn on Congress and that it will be reflected in their approval ratings of both the Congress and the President. In short order, 39% is going to be looking quite good.

Dave Tessier (guest)
Businessman :

Why do the same people who bash Charles Freeman for his relationship with the Saudi's, see no harm with Dennis Ross's relationship with Israel. One is pro-Israeli and the other may be pro-Saudi. Part of the reason why the United States is stuck in the mud with respect to it's Middle East Policy is because we've engaged in groupthink far too often and we've automatically signed off on everything done by Israel. Are we going to continue this policy? We must not. We've got to have an open and honest conversation, especially as we look forward to several bigger issues? For example, are we planning to sign off on everything done and said by Avigdor Leibermann because of our "special relationship" with Israel? Why should the US treat the new Israeli government any different than we treated Austria's government when they elected Jorg Haider? We've got to broaden the conversation and include perspectives from both sides and I am saddened that the new administration did not see it politically worthwhile to do so. It sets a bad precedent, especially considering our current crisis in Iraq could have been prevented had we not engaged in groupthink.

Stefan Saal (guest)
sculptor , NH:

In America, we are beneficiaries of the "separation of church and state." Around the world, in countries where this separation does not exist, we see trouble: We feel uneasy when Germans declare themselves a "Christian nation." Theocracy in Iran has an entire people under fatwa and house arrest. Indeed, in almost every Muslim nation, the subjugation of women --supposedly dictated by the Koran-- impedes the advance of civilization; women are simply not allowed in public life. The Israeli mission to be a "Jewish state" imposes an analogous burden. In the absence of religious toleration and the separation of church and state, it's hard to foresee progress.

Linda Conley (guest)
Homemaker/Reader , OR:

The spike in the Congressional approval rating is largely a Democrat-based one. Republicans' approval dropped by 1% during the same time period. Not a surprise because the Democrat voting bloc is largely comprised of folks who believe in an activist government. That is precisely what we have and will continue to see with the administration. There is, however, a severe disconnect with people on the streets and the unsustainable economic giveaways of this presidency. Sean Hannity's Friday afternoon radio program features a not-terribly-funny "Man on the Street" hour whereby an anonymous someone chosen by the show, say, at Penn Station, is quizzed by Hannity on the current administration's policies; most questioned flee when the questions get too tough. One week, three out of four college graduates in their early twenties, all of whom voted for Obama, did not even know who the Vice President is. If Hannity is able to continue the questioning, it comes down to this: How much do you think the government should provide for you? Too often I hear the one questioned say that not only should government provide universal health-care and child-care and education from KG to that first job, but also transportation to and from work, and, barring a mass-transit system, say, in a small town, the government should provide a limosine-type service for the person requiring transportation.

Hannity is incredulous: "who taught you to expect so much from the government?" Where is the money to come from? Obama will push his health-care program QUIETLY through Congress without debate, but I promise you, there will be a NOISY revolt with a very large portion of the population who disagree. In 94', at least the country could debate the pros and cons of HilaryCare. Way back in 1935, when the Social Security program was begun by FDR, my grandmother said it felt okay to her, you know, an old age pension that the government saves for us from our hard-earned dollars. It started out then at 2% of the paycheck; it grew to 15% currently and will continue to grow with the incompetent government spending that money -- our monies -- where it pleases. Someone once said: it is their veritable ATM machine. My children will see none of their social security payments. It is essential that we educate young voters on simple economic principles, like this one: you cannot spend endlessly from an empty pocketbook. Any credit-card debtor learned this the hard way. Our young people are still full of youthful idealism. The Democrat programs of spend and tax appear caring but are unsustainable. Businesses must be created; people require jobs for their well-being and for the best return in government revenue. Even mid-Western Democratic congressman are beginning to revolt against the anti-business Obama administration that refuses to acknowledge the relationship between Wall Street and Main Street; the Democrat party for decades convinced the largely politically illiterate public that Wall Street's earning negatively impact the little guy on Main Street. We begin to learn the long hard way that this disconnect is a fable. Yesterday, at my hairdresser's, my stylist lamented the fact that the rent for her station at the shop was to be increased by the capitalist woman in charge of the place. She saw no connection between her vote for Obama and higher rents. I said nothing. Oh, these next four years will be bone-chilling.

Michelle Arndt (guest)
Analyst , FL:

National Intelligence will play into foreign policy. We all saw how ignorance of the facts and manipulations do not benefit the country as a whole when Iraq was invaded because there were 'weapons of mass destruction'. Someone chosen for this position needs to free of personal bias and neutral to the conflict yet have depth of knowledge about the situation. Finding someone neutral will probably be hard to come by but the administration should be digging a bit harder.

Akram Baker (guest)
Organizational Development Consultant :

Freeman affair.
In yet another attack on free-thinking Americans, the pro-Israeli occupation lobby and their apologists have sent an arrow through our supposed love of free speech and open and honest debate. Those who are/were financially indebted to Israeli interests and their proxies are lauded as honest brokers (see Dennis Ross) while anyone with a critical word to say about Israel's illegal and detrimental policies are ostracized and pushed out. The Obama Administration needs to take on ALL lobbyists - starting with AIPAC. In order to bring peace to the Middle East, we need to reject the mobbing of those dare to point out that not all of Israel's policies are in synch with the United States'.

Stephen Mormino (guest)
Union Roofer , IL:

What rational thinking human being can explain anything that goes on in Washington. The spike in congress approval rating, well my fellow Americans do not seem real astute.

Karl Knapstein (guest)
Service Tech , CO:

Congress Approval rating: I think its a combination of Cheering on the Home Team and the perception that Congress is actually doing something. We should link the Approval numbers to Congressional perks. Start with their Health benefits, Today we will pay 39% and redo the poll every 30 days. Maybe we should poll the American people on our approval of Israeli actions and pay our "Aid" accordingly?

Edward Stroligo (guest)
Writer , NY:

Per Freeman, I think this is another outbreak of continuing nervousness among pro-Israeli forces over Democratic support if push comes to shove.
Why? Go to any leftish Democratic website and search for comments about the recent Gaza invasion, and you'll see why. Per Congressional
approval, there's no mystery here. The Gallup poll explains why perfectly well: Democrats like Democratic Congresses doing Democratic things, and that has also influenced support from independents to crawl up from the sewer to the gutter.

Jonathan Wolfman (guest)
Writer/Editor/Retired Teacher , MD:

CHARLES FREEMAN & THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
No one takes a position such as chairman of the National Security Council devoid of biases. People considered for that and many other ranking posts in our foreign policy and security structure bring with them years of personal and professional experience, here and overseas, that often lead them to what could be called a general approach to an issue or, in the Near East, a series of entrenched, terrifically thorny issues. That's to be expected. At the same time, what serves the United States and all players in the Near East best are professionals whose views at least appear to be open to new ideas, persuasion, and are not entrenched, and whose personalities are not thorny.
Mr. Freeman's work for and associations with the Saudi government alone wouldn't, for me, disqualify him from the position he wanted, but his intemperate, if not vitriolic, comments about Israel do. (See today's 'New York Times' among numerous other sources.)
In addition, I have to wonder if his longstanding associations with and seeming affinity for autocrats in places such as Saudi Arabia and China would serve us well in a world we would like to see become increasingly democratic. As one who taught near Peking just before the June 4, 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre and as one who knows how tough it was to help get a student out of there after the crackdown, I am not comfortable with a man representing my country in such a critical post who has lauded that event, saying that critics of the Politburo were simple dupes of Western "propoganda". I am pleased that the White House heard the concerns of Senator Schumer (and many others) and thought seriously before making such a dubious appointment. We can do better.

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.